The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KVDebates
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Racists. Those that identify themselves as a Race.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
KVDebates
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 75691
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (3)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

Just the truth, nothing but the truth. Ahuman, or Amen, however you pronounce it. Sorry to piss of the feminists, but they are the species man also. First round is your first argument against this con. Beware.
KVDebates

Con

The proposition states that a "Racist" is one who identifies themself as a race.
Well race in a scientific sense refers to the human race, and by the virtue everyone is racist, however I'm sure pro is refering to the collequial conception of race synonymous with ethnicity.

"a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
"http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;.
"A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Well the notion that one identifies themself with a race does not entail that the individual believes the race they belong to is superior.
For example my best friend is white, however he does not believe that white people are superior.
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

You white friend did of course believes he is equal? right?

Or does he side with guilt of whiteness, in favor of a darker shade of skin? please elaborate, whisperer, wormtongue.
KVDebates

Con

Pro alludes to liberal guilt, which even if it were at play in my example would actually substantiate my point, being that he would intentionally see the races as equal even if the motivation was less than ideal.
Pro has not presented an argument for his side and has mostly been non-topical.
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

Thank you for your response, it is much appreciated, however naive and misguided it may be. I will address your disillusions in order. I will use no source, as they are all biased, and I am not taking sides. This argument is fact, in my pea brain.

Racists, identify themselves as a race first. This is the mantra of all racist's Black or White. Racist's see color. Only a non racist does not. You cannot be accused of racism if you are colorblind. All racists see people as colors.

Liberal guilt uses the powers of the poll to protect their own wealth based on their ability to manipulate the facts about who is and isn't racist. Vermont was the first non racist state and it was governed by conservative whites that did not believe in owning slaves. Now the liberal democrats have slithered their way into our statehouse and have made us slaves to their law.

That is the truth as I know it.

So be it.
KVDebates

Con


Pro says"Racists, identify themselves as a race first. This is the mantra of all racist's Black or White. Racist's see color. Only a non racist does not. You cannot be accused of racism if you are colorblind. All racists see people as colors."
The motion states that racist are those who identify themselves as a race and pro has not substantiated this and has diverged from it.


Now he says racists see color and non racist does not and this is only by virtue of being colorblind.
1- Colorblind people are still a race.
2. Even though all racist see color, it does not entail that all people who see color are racist.

The next paragraph is non-topical.
Also please give me conduct, as pro was quite rude,
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
At least you don't want to be a political engineer. Goodnight, and good luck, DONT WASTE THE TAXPAYERS DOLOLARS!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by KVDebates 1 year ago
KVDebates
Dude I literally don't care, I just want to study history and literature, play my violin and xbox and be a civil engineer.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Just a dumb arse american taxpayer here. Have you ever worked and paid the taxes? Who paid for the academic aspirations? Did you sell a lot of lemonade, or what? Who pays the academics? The tyrants mostly. Life granted, how grand.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Ethnicity is the most basic for of division, and the most basic way to be elected. Ask the Obama's which ethnicity they targeted for votes. THIS IS A NATION OF RACISTS! When the majority is not white, we will see revelation. Cheers!
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
The winners of the debates continue the destruction of humanities abilities, for their own wealth gathering, as the world is small now.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Is society winning? Are the winners the good? Where exactly are the good winning? WHERE? IRAQ? THE VATICAN? OXFORD? MULLAH OhiARS HAREM OF YOU DAUGHTERS? where are the good folk winning? You are attempting to win, how grand. FlUCKERS, eat a hot dog, pendeo.
Posted by KVDebates 1 year ago
KVDebates
The point of a debate is to win
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Congrats on your ability to garner votes. It's just not my game.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Not one bit black? But you admit to whiteness? huh? Playing both sides of thy face, how admirable. I am not white, or black, I am humane.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
You are a coward, on to your next Ivory Tower WAR, aren't you. Captain diversity.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Max.WallaceKVDebatesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I won't be too tough on pro, because he is more than likely mentally retarded. Pro failed to even argue his point. He seemed to veer off topic and talk about things not directly relatable to the resolution, and then moved on to start insulting his opponent. I won't discount conduct for it, because pro doesn't have the intellectual ability to know any better.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Max.WallaceKVDebatesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Even though Pro initiated the debate, they seem reluctant to actually debate this. Their responses were vague, and they often go on tangents not at all related to the debate. Also, using words like "wormtongue" try to paint a dishonest picture of con. S&G: There wasn't any glaring spelling issues that made either side's case hard to decpiher. Arguments: Con made better arguments in that he actually made an argument. Pro's 'argument' that those who see race are racists is so utterly wrong that I don't know how to communicate just how stupid it is. It's like saying, those who recognize floods are bigots because "It's all just water man!" Sorry, but there is a race problem not just in America, but also around the world. Sources: Pro stated outright that they refused to give any sources, but it wouldn't matter because it's hard to find a source for something you found in the dream journal of an LSD addict. Con actually gave sources.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
Max.WallaceKVDebatesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brings up the notion that someone can identify themselves as part of a certain race, Pro drops this point entirely. Pro then states that anyone who sees color is a racist, this has nothing to do with the original resolution. Con was the only one to use sources.